Sandres v. State Of Louisiana Division Of Administration , Office Of Risk Management

Filing 157

RULING denying 151 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/6/2012. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NAOMI SANDRES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 07-375-BAJ-SCR

STATE OF LOUISIANA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION,
OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT

consolidated with:
CV 08-145-BAJ-SCR
CV 08-524-BAJ-SCR
CV 08-563-BAJ-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as
Defendants Failed to Make Disclosure and Cooperate in Discovery as
Stated in Rule 37 of FRCP (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure).
Record document number 151.

The motion is opposed.1

Plaintiff filed this motion seeking to compel the defendants
to provide additional information and documents in response to her
discovery requests, particularly discovery requests related to CV
08-524 and CV 08-563. Plaintiff identified the interrogatories she
contends the defendants failed to sufficiently answer and the
document production requests for which they failed to produce
responsive documents.

But for many of these that is all she did;

and as to the others she made no cogent argument to support her
demand for more information or additional documents.
Defendants asserted that much of the information and documents
sought by the plaintiff is not relevant to her claims and that is

1

Record document number 153.

why it was not provided or produced.2

Defendants asserted that

the plaintiff was “certified” as qualified for only one of the
seven positions for which she applied.

As to the other six

positions, because she was not qualified for those positions
information
relevant.
related

to

and

documents

related

to

those

positions

is

not

Plaintiff was provided with information and documents
the

one

position

for

which

she

was

certified

as

qualified.
Defendants’ are correct.

Plaintiff has not shown that the

defendants’ discovery responses are materially deficient or that
the

defendants

failed

to

produce

relevant

and

responsive

information or documents.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 6, 2012.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Neither the plaintiff’s discovery requests nor the
defendants responses were filed in connection with this motion.